← All Phrases

“sundry creditors”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,806 judgments

The decision most relied on for sundry creditors is CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (343 ITR 408), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on sundry creditors

CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.
343 ITR 408 · 2012 · High Court
76
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 cannot be made for genuine sundry creditors or trade payables merely carried forward from previous assessment years if there is no fresh credit in the relevant assessment year. Section 41(1) does not apply to acknowledged outstanding liabilities without actual remission or cessation.

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain
205 CTR 444 · 2006 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding trade creditors, especially when the genuineness of the purchases is accepted by the department.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra
301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court
47
citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

CIT v. Nitin S. Garg
208 Taxmann 16 · 2012 · High Court
47
citing judgments

A trading liability acknowledged and continued to be shown in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) merely because it remained outstanding for several years, unless the assessee has written it off in its books. The Assessing Officer must prove that the assessee obtained a benefit.

CIT v. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara
43 Taxmann.com 55 · 2014 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act applies only where there is remission or cessation of a trading liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, and not merely because the assessee cannot provide confirmations for sundry creditors.

CIT v. Padamchand Ramgopal
76 ITR 719 · 1970 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

Minor irregularities in books of account cannot be the sole basis for rejection of the books or for making an estimated trading addition, especially when the assessee has provided explanations for discrepancies. The case distinguishes itself by focusing on receipts not brought into account rather than expenses claimed.

CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja
325 ITR 593 · 2010 · High Court
39
citing judgments

A liability cannot be presumed to have ceased to exist merely because it has been outstanding for several years. Without a bilateral act between the assessee and the creditor indicating cessation, additions under section 41(1) are not permissible.

CIT v. Best Wood Industries and Saw Mills
11 Taxmann.com 278 · 2011 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Once an assessment is reopened for a valid reason under Section 148(2), the Assessing Officer can bring to tax any escaped income that comes to their notice during the reassessment, even if it was not the original basis for reopening.

Judgments citing sundry creditors

Income Tax Officer, Aligarh vs. Sanjay Singh, Aligarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 182/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.181/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.182/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income-Tax Officer Shri Sanjay Singh 4(1)(1), Aligarh. S/O Sh. Yogendra Singh, बनाम/ V.S. Enterprises, Gali No.1, Vs. Tikonia Nagla Road Sangam Vihar, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Gtrps-3169-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit/Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal Ita No.181/Agr/2023 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 29- 09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-04-2021. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Cit-Dr Who Pleaded For Restoration Of Assessment Order. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT/DR
Section 144

verify business purchases and quantitative details. In the absence of any response as forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. AO added opening capital, opening stock, sundry creditors and cash deposits to the income of the assessee. All the four items aggregated to Rs.12.84 Crores. The Ld. AO also rejected the books ... resulted into another addition of Rs.7.88 Crores. 3. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) substantially confirmed the assessment except for deletion of addition of sundry creditors, opening stock and cash deposit for Rs.12.73 Crores. The same was on the ground that the when income is estimated basis by rejecting

Income Tax Officer- 4(1)(1), Aligarh vs. Sanjay Singh, Aligarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 181/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.181/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.182/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income-Tax Officer Shri Sanjay Singh 4(1)(1), Aligarh. S/O Sh. Yogendra Singh, बनाम/ V.S. Enterprises, Gali No.1, Vs. Tikonia Nagla Road Sangam Vihar, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Gtrps-3169-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit/Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal Ita No.181/Agr/2023 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 29- 09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-04-2021. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Cit-Dr Who Pleaded For Restoration Of Assessment Order. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT/DR
Section 144

verify business purchases and quantitative details. In the absence of any response as forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. AO added opening capital, opening stock, sundry creditors and cash deposits to the income of the assessee. All the four items aggregated to Rs.12.84 Crores. The Ld. AO also rejected the books ... resulted into another addition of Rs.7.88 Crores. 3. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) substantially confirmed the assessment except for deletion of addition of sundry creditors, opening stock and cash deposit for Rs.12.73 Crores. The same was on the ground that the when income is estimated basis by rejecting

Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Kalsariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1321/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Kalsariya 3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. 120, Kamal Park Society, L..H. Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Road, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Civil Hospital, Surat 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bijpk 0301 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 05.12.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

documentary evidence in support of business activities claimed to have been carried out by him. The assessee has shown “Nil” amount against sundry debtors, sundry creditors and stock-in-trade in the trading business of grocery which is not satisfactory and acceptable. The CIT(A) stated that the burden